A good journalist would take the details of the plan I’m about to lay out and expand on every excruciating detail in order to give it some meat. I’m going to keep this really, really straight forward. In fact, I’m going to do it in Twitter format – 280-characters or less per paragraph.

Dear Mr. President: There is a path you can take to improve border security, end the shutdown, deliver the State of the Union, build the wall, and make Democrats look like intellectual lightweights…

1. Accept the deal the Democrats are offering to fund $5.7 billion towards improved border security. Make a plan for improved technology, more border patrol agents, and more immigration judges. Let’s catch them more easily and either let them in or send them home faster.

2. Open up the government. Get these people their paychecks, get tax returns and food stamps out on time, and get the TSA and other government agencies working properly again. Hold a big press conference with Nancy Pelosi inviting you to the State of the Union.

3. Keep quiet until the State of the Union. Tweet about this man’s book or that woman’s awesome award. Tweet about the State of the Union, Venezuela, term limits (conservatives would LOVE that!). Tweet about ANYTHING other than the wall.

4. At the #SOTU, lead with jobs/economy, but quickly shift to the border crisis. Reveal that with some of the money allocated for border security, you’re assigning a task force of law enforcement’s drug smuggling and transnational organized crime experts to find border issues.

5. Announce you are having them request support from the Secretary of Defense, at which point he can invoke 10 U.S.C. 284 to begin immediate construction of a steel slat border fence in the areas deemed vulnerable by your task force.

6. Thank the Democrats for funding the necessary components of border security that will work in conjunction with the new border wall. Smile big. Point at Nancy Pelosi. Give her a hearty clap and ask the crowd to join you.

7. Once all this is done, work with your advisers to come up with a fair but clear cut way to make Mexico pay for it. They may not write a check, but we still have plenty of leverage to extract the funds through other means.

Some of you will note that I’m not a fan of the President’s, so why would I offer a solution. I’m a fan of America. I want the border secured. I want Americans to get paid instead of being political pawns. I may not agree with everything the President does or how he goes about doing it, but we need to set aside our complaints for now to get the wall built and the government shutdown ended.

This series of actions would let the President and America have our cake and eat it, too. More funds for border security. Government shutdown ended. Border wall getting built. This is exactly what the President needs to do to win big for all of us.

As Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign prepares to put the pedal to the metal, the administration wants to begin making its push for its Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, according to a report by The Jerusalem Post.

Trump committed back in September 2018 to release his much-ballyhooed plan by the end of this month, but he has now decided to wait until April. Why the delay? Because Israel has an election in April and Trump is hoping for enough turnover within the Israeli government to garner the support he needs to get a two-state peace plan approved.

Ah, yes. The two-state solution. The same, tired policy loved and promoted by Barack Obama. Interestingly enough, Barry interfered in Israel’s elections in 2015 in an attempt to get rid of Benjamin Netanyahu and his government, replacing them with a government that would accept the community organizer’s two-state plan.

Despite his rhetoric about having the strongest pro-Israel platform “ever developed in the history of [America],” Trump’s Middle East policies have had much more in common with those of his predecessor than not.

In his first few weeks in office, Trump condemned Israel for building new settlements in the West Bank, saying that they “may not be helpful in achieving [peace].” And shortly after becoming Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson confirmed that the administration considered the two-state solution the primary “aspiration” for peace.

When Trump promised to release his peace plan back in September, he confirmed his intention to force the two-state solution on Israel:

“I like [a] two-state solution. That’s what I think works best. Now, you may have a different feeling. I don’t think so. But I think [a] two-state solution works best.”

At a campaign rally at West Virginia last fall, Trump essentially threatened Israel with extortion, telling the audience that “Israel will have to pay a higher price” for peace, and he promised to deliver “something very good” to the Palestinians “because it’s their turn.”

Trump’ son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, is the guy in charge of the administrations peace plan, and he’s been a “two-stater” from the beginning. In a speech celebrating the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, Kushner took the opportunity to reaffirm Trump’s commitment to the pro-Palestinian peace plan:

“We believe it’s possible for both sides to gain more than they give — so that all people can live in peace — safe from danger, free from fear, and able to pursue their dreams.”

Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz once called the two-state solution the “Obamacare of foreign policy” because it is just as catastrophic for foreign policy as Obamacare is for domestic policy.

Unfortunately, like Obamacare, the two-state solution remains alive and well in the Trump administration.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Tuesday marked the 46^th Anniversary of arguably the worst violation of individual liberties in American history.  It is truly amazing how people can argue that Roe vs. Wade was one of the greatest victories for women’s rights.

Let’s begin by looking at it from that perspective. Look at the number of abortions that occur in the United States today.  According to the statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), there were an average of 1,788 abortions performed each DAY in the United States in 2014. That is an average of one abortion occurring every 48 seconds. Now, if we use the laws of averages and say that on average half of those unborn children (as there are only TWO biological genders), that means on an average day in 2014, 894 unborn women were denied an entire litany of their “Women’s Rights”.

Their future right to vote was taken away.

Their future right to marry whoever they see fit was taken away.

Their future right to pay equality was taken away.

Their future right to worship whatever religion they see fit was taken away.

Their future right of Freedom of Speech was taken away.

But the greatest travesty of all, the single greatest women’s right that they were denied, was the individual liberty that is more important than any of those.  They were denied the right to exist!

Now, let’s widen the scope a little bit more.  Let us look at the other side of the gender coin, the male gender.  As I previously stated, there were an average of 1,788 abortions performed each DAY in the United States in 2014.  That means there were an average 894 unborn men denied the same litany of their individual liberties.

Now, I am sure there are a number of feminist extremists who are perfectly fine with knowing that little tidbit of information.  But, doesn’t that beg the question, “What were those 894 unborn men destined for in the scope of history?”  Could one of them grown up to become the next Chief Justice William O. Douglas (a self-identified Democrat and one of the seven Supreme Court Justices that voted in favor of Roe vs. Wade). But then, you would have many of your militant feminists contend, “Well, many of those ‘men’ will more than likely grow up to be male chauvinist Republicans. Douglas was clearly an exception to the rule!”

My response is, “If they grew up to be Republicans, would that necessarily be a bad thing?  After all, when Roe vs. Wade was decided upon on January 22, 1973 it was a seven to two decision.  Of the seven Supreme Court Justices who found in favor, only two of them were self-identified Democrats.  Yes, that is right, five of the seven Supreme Court Justices that found in favor of Roe (whose real name was Norma McCorvey) were self-identified Republicans. (Just a side note, of the two dissenting Supreme Court Justices, one of them, Justice Byron White was a self-identified Democrat who was nominated by President John F. Kennedy.)

They also want to look into “ending most first-class travel for federal officeholders.” I wonder who will be exempt from being included into that “most.” Will Nancy Pelosi being flying coach with the rest of her voting constituency?

Next, let’s look at the racial aspect of the abortion topic.  Non-Hispanic Black women accounted for approximately 36% of the abortions in 2014; that is 644 unborn non-Hispanic Black children a day.  Which of those children could have grown up to be the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Thurgood Marshall (the only other self-identified Democrat to vote in support of Roe and the first African-American Supreme Court Justice).  That’s not to imply that the majority of abortions are by African American women, the majority of American abortions are by White American women with 38%.  It begs the question. Which of these could have grown up to be the next Eleanor Roosevelt?

What other future icons has the world been denied because they were aborted? How can people not ponder which of these unborn women could have grown up to be the next titan of industry like CJ Walker or would bring forward the next great leap in the world of medicine like Marie Curie? How many innovators like Steve Jobs, Emmy Noether or Alexander Fleming has the world been denied? Of Course, some content that abortion is a good thing in cases where modern medical technology has determined that the unborn child has a severe birth defect or will have a limited life-span due to a genetic medical condition.

Well, if Frank and Isobel Hawking had been convinced of this notion in 1942 the world would have never known the ground-breaking genius of Stephen William Hawking (one of the foremost minds in theoretical physics). Another argument used as a suggested acceptable circumstance to allow abortion is in the event of a woman being a victim of rape.  So, they are saying 16 year old Helen Burns should have chosen to have an abortion in 1941 when she was raped by her 33 year old neighbor.  Or Annie Mae Keith (a woman of African American and Cherokee decent) should have had an abortion when she was raped in 1926 by a white man.  If Helen Burns followed this mindset, the world would have never known civil rights figure Jesse Jackson.  As well, Annie May Keith adhering to this train of thought would have deprived the world of the vocal magic of legendary singer Eartha Kitt.

Many pro-choice supporters like to point to the unborn child as nothing more than a “lump of tissue” that is not an actual person because it could not survive outside the woman’s body.  My response is, that means the unborn child is no different than the woman.  If you deprive the woman of basic care, food and water, the woman would not survive either.

The other main argument of abortion is it is a “Woman’s Choice” to do with her body as she sees fit, and no one should be able to force their will on her body.  I just pose one question to those women, if that is the case, how is you imposing your will on the unborn child any different?

Nathan Cotus

Nathan Cotus on Facebook